From last time: Inlining pros and cons Pros –eliminate overhead of call/return sequence –eliminate overhead of passing args & returning results –can optimize callee in context of caller and vice versa Cons –can increase compiled code space requirements –can slow down compilation –recursion? Virtual inlining: simulate inlining during analysis of caller, but don’t actually perform the inlining

Which calls to inline What affects the decision as to which calls to inline? –size of caller and callee (easy to compute size before inlining, but what about size after inlining?) –frequency of call (static estimates or dynamic profiles) –call sites where callee benefits most from optimization (not clear how to quantify) –programmer annotations (if so, annotate procedure or call site? Also, should the compiler really listen to the programmer?)

Which calls to inline The above metrics vary in how easy/hard they are to quantify Even if one were able to quantify all of them accurately, how does one put them together to make a decision? Inlining heuristics

Strategy 1: superficial analysis –examine source code of callee to estimate space costs, use this to determine when to inline –doesn’t account for post-inlining optimizations How can we do better?

Inlining heuristics Strategy 2: deep analysis –perform inlining –perform post-inlining analysis/optimizations –estimate benefits from opts, and measure code space after opts –undo inlining if costs exceed benefits –better accounts for post-inlining effects –much more expensive in compile-time How can we do better?

Inlining heuristics Strategy 3: amortized version of 2 [Dean & Chambers 94] –perform strategy 2: an inlining “trial” –record cost/benefit trade-offs in persistent database –reuse previous cost/benefit results for “similar” call sites

Inlining heuristics Strategy 4: use machine learning techniques For example, use genetic algorithms to evolve heuristics for inlining –fitness is evaluated on how well the heuristics do on a set of benchmarks –cross-populate and mutate heuristics Can work surprisingly well to derive various heuristics for compilres

Another way to remove procedure calls inf f(...) { if (...) return g(...);... return h(i(....), j(...)); }

Tail call eliminiation Tail call: last thing before return is a call –callee returns, then caller immediately returns Can splice out one stack frame creation and destruction by jumping to callee rather than calling –callee reuses caller’s stack frame & return address –callee will return directly to caller’s caller –effect on debugging?

Tail recursion elimination If last operation is self-recursive call, what does tail call elimination do?

Tail recursion elimination If last operation is self-recursive call, what does tail call elimination do? Transforms recursion into loop: tail recursion elimination –common optimization in compilers for functional languages –required by some language specifications, eg Scheme –turns stack space usage from O(n) to O(1)

Addressing costs of procedure calls Technique 1: try to get rid of calls, using inlining and other techniques Technique 2: interprocedural analysis, for calls that are left

Interprocedural analysis Extend intraprocedural analyses to work across calls Doesn’t increase code size But, doesn’t eliminate direct runtime costs of call And it may not be as effective as inlining at cutting the “precision cost” of procedure calls

A simple approach (discussion)

A simple approach Given call graph and CFGs of procedures, create a single CFG (control flow super-graph) by: –connecting call sites to entry nodes of callees (entries become merges) –connecting return nodes of callees back to calls (returns become splits) Cons: –speed? –separate compilation? –imprecision due to “unrealizable paths”

Another approach: summaries (discussion)

Code examples for discussion global a; a := 5; f(...); b := a + 10; global a; f(p) { *p := 0; } g() { a := 5; f(&a); b := a + 10; } h() { a := 5; f(&b); b := a + 10; }

Another approach: summaries Compute summary info for each procedure Callee summary: summarizes effect/results of callee procedures for callers –used to implement the flow function for a call node Caller summaries: summarizes context of all callers for callee procedure –used to start analysis of a procedure

Examples of summaries

Issues with summaries Level of “context” sensitivity: –For example, one summary that summarizes the entire procedure for all call sites –Or, one summary for each call site (getting close to the precision of inlining) –Or... Various levels of captured information –as small as a single bit –as large as the whole source code for callee/callers How does separate compilation work?

How to compute summaries Using Iterative analysis Keep the current solution in a map from procs to summaries Keep a worklist of procedures to process Pick a proc from the worklist, compute its summary using intraprocedural analysis and the current summaries for all other nodes If summary has changed, add callers/callees to the worklist for callee/caller summaries

How to compute callee summaries let m: map from proc to computed summary let worklist: work list of procs for each proc p in call graph do m(p) := ? for each proc p do worklist.add(p) while (worklist.empty.not) do let p := worklist.remove_any; // compute summary using intraproc analysis // and current summaries m let summary := compute_summary(p,m); if (m(p)  summary) m(p) := summary; for each caller c of p worklist.add(c)

Examples Let’s see how this works on some examples We’ll use an analysis for program verification as a running example

Protocol checking Interface usage rules in documentation –Order of operations, data access –Resource management –Incomplete, wordy, not checked Violated rules ) crashes –Failed runtime checks –Unreliable software

FSM protocols These protocols can often be expressed as FSMs For example: lock protocol Unlocked Locked lock unlock Error unlock lock *

FSM protocols Alphabet of FSM are actions that affect the state of the FSM Often leave error state implicit These FSMs can get pretty big for realistic kernel protocols

FSM protocol checking Goal: make sure that FSM does not enter error state Lattice:

Lock protocol example g() { lock; } h() { unlock; } f() { h(); if (...) { main(); } main() { g(); f(); lock; unlock; }

Lock protocol example g() { lock; } h() { unlock; } f() { h(); if (...) { main(); } } main() { g(); f(); lock; unlock; } mainfgh

Lock protocol example g() { lock; } h() { unlock; } f() { h(); if (...) { main(); } } main() { g(); f(); lock; unlock; } mainfgh ;;;;;;; u u ” ”””” ” ” l ” ””” ” ” l ” ”” ” ” ”” ” ” ””” ”” ” ” ”” ” ”” ” l ” ” ” ” ”” ” ” ” ” ” ”” ” ” ” ” ” ”” ” u u u u

Another lock protocol example g() { if(isLocked()) { unlock; } else { lock; } f() { g(); if (...) { main(); } main() { g(); f(); lock; unlock; }

Another lock protocol example g() { if(isLocked()) { unlock; } else { lock; } } mainfg f() { g(); if (...) { main(); } } main() { g(); f(); lock; unlock; }

Another lock protocol example g() { if(isLocked()) { unlock; } else { lock; } } mainfg ;;;;; u ” ”””” ” ””” ” ” ”” ” ” ” ”””” u l l ” ””” ” ” ” ” ” {u,l} f() { g(); if (...) { main(); } } main() { g(); f(); lock; unlock; } {u,l} ”” ” ” {u,e}

What went wrong?

We merged info from two call sites of g() Solution: summaries that keep different contexts separate What is a context?